Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No I don't remember that at all. The left was unhappy at the prospect of another Bush presidency, but he was not dismissed as "unelectable". Here is a May 2000 article from the NY Times:
I think he is referring to before, Bush was actually the candidate and he is remembering all the talk: TV and radio talk shows and the regular interviews: We lived in Texas at that time and yes, many did think he was almost a joke. of course there were some who didn't believe he was a joke, but overall, he wasn't expected to even get the nomination by many. The article you dug up was written well into the primary season.
I liked a lot of Perry's ideas too! If only I could remember what they were. oops.
Seriously, Rick Perry has never had an original thought in his life. If he did, he wouldn't have blundered into the oops moment.
Politicians these days are so over consulted they never say what they're really thinking. The ones who do are vilified or have no chance of winning, like Newt Gingrich (full of ideas though some are a little out there); Ron Paul (hated by the dems and republicans alike).
If anything, this should irritate far left extremists, bobtn, who are perfectly content to do nothing about illegal immigration except give illegal aliens more benefits.
Nope. Mrs. Clinton is a neo-con. Always has been. Anyone that considers themselves even a slight bit to the left of center is deluding themselves if they think that she is the answer to their liberal prayers.
Interesting take on Mrs. Clinton's agenda here:
"Hillary Clinton, however, not only voted for the Iraq War, but her foreign policy has been described as "neocon" by other neoconservatives.
...
Hillary Clinton is neither a liberal nor a true conservative. Rather, she's an electable Democratic candidate who leans to the right. She's the Democratic version of Mitt Romney."
I am not going to say Hillary is going to be our next president, but I will say it is more likely to be her then anyone else since she is currently the only person with a clear path through the primaries.
I am not going to say Hillary is going to be our next president, but I will say it is more likely to be her then anyone else since she is currently the only person with a clear path through the primaries.
After inflicting the country with 8 years of Obama, the people who vote in Democrat primaries really need to take about a 10 year break from voting in any election.
Nope. Mrs. Clinton is a neo-con. Always has been. Anyone that considers themselves even a slight bit to the left of center is deluding themselves if they think that she is the answer to their liberal prayers.
Interesting take on Mrs. Clinton's agenda here:
"Hillary Clinton, however, not only voted for the Iraq War, but her foreign policy has been described as "neocon" by other neoconservatives.
...
Hillary Clinton is neither a liberal nor a true conservative. Rather, she's an electable Democratic candidate who leans to the right. She's the Democratic version of Mitt Romney."
I don't agree with all of Mr Goodman's conclusions, or with the flimsy evidence he offers to support those conclusions. I do think that Secretary Clinton is a combination of conservatism and liberalism, much like her husband was. I think IF she announces a candidacy, and begins to describe her approach to foreign policy, economic policy and social issues, we'll have a clearer idea of where she falls in those areas.
I'm not sure, though, that she's as interventionist regarding foreign policy as Mr Goodman thinks she is. I think if she did become President, her focus would be much more on domestic issues than on foreign policy.
After inflicting the country with 8 years of Obama, the people who vote in Democrat primaries really need to take about a 10 year break from voting in any election.
After inflicting their destructive, obstructive, intrusive policies on the country for the last five years, the Tea Partiers and the far right really need to take a 10 year break from voting in any election.
After inflicting the country with 8 years of Obama, the people who vote in Democrat primaries really need to take about a 10 year break from voting in any election.
That would probably be the only way a Republican could win the Presidency in the next 10 years. Your party is being slaughtered in the minority, single women, and under 30 vote and its obvious you all are in a civil war on top of that judging from your ousting of your majority leader in a primary and some of the contentious primaries tonight. You all have fun with that.
No I don't remember that at all. The left was unhappy at the prospect of another Bush presidency, but he was not dismissed as "unelectable". Here is a May 2000 article from the NY Times:
That article was published after the nominations were probably obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
